Central Garage Ejector Wall Project
Process Review Report
Process Title
Central Garage Ejector Wall Rebuild Project
Process Number
790-12
Date
8/20/2012
Originator
Bob Peck, Fleet Superintendent
Team Members
Casey Stephenson
Develop cost effective alternative for defective Sanitation truc
Objective
ejector walls
Recommendation
Immediate:
Evaluate defective sanitation truck ejector walls with the Sanitation
Superintendent
Identify potential for removal and rebuild of ejector walls vs. in-place
rebuild (repair with ejector wall still in packer body)
When possible, remove and rebuild existing ejector walls in-hous
of purchasing new ejector walls
Long Term:
Inspect rebuilt ejector walls for wear and consider improvements of
weight, space, weld techniques, etc.
Labor and cost savings
Annual dollar savings: $2,655 - Current cost to replace the ejector wall is $5,000.
The cost to repair it is $2,345. By removing the ejector wall and repairing it on
site, $2,655 can be saved per instance. This normally happens ab
Annual hours of increased capacity: None
Customer service or employee benefit:
Has the potential to reduce the total amount of downtime for eac
Improves the working conditions of the technician by eliminating
need to enter packer body to make the repairs in-place
Enables technicians to make more complete inspections and repairs;
resulting in stronger welds, better overall build quality, and improved
ejector performance
Helps eliminate the need for rework if the repair in-place was insufficient
Implementation plan
Test process and implement immediately
Recommended changes
Central Garage Technicians now have another repair option to
in employee process
consider in lieu of replacement of the ejector wall or repair in-
roles
place
Lean Six Sigma
Improved transporting (shipping times)
principles applied to this
Reduced non-value added work (in-place rebuilds)
process
Eliminated defects/mistakes (rework)
Technologies that could
Tracking of ejector wall problems and repair/replace solutions
be applied to this process
detailed in current Fleet Management System
Overview of workgroupÔs Highlight those words which best describe this workgroup:
participation
non-participative, uncooperative, hostile, turbulent, halfhearted,
disinterested, divided, collaborative, participating, suppor
Attachments
Pictures of project
Approval Process
SupervisorÔs Review
Instructions: This form is submitted through the chain of command to the
Director.
and others in the Chain of
Date: 9/13/12
Command
Name: Jim Teutsch, Operations Manager
Comments: This provides a direct savings of $2,655 and several
customer/employee benefits
Instructions: Approval authority is delegated to each Director for all
DirectorÔs Approval
$5,000 or less in annual savings, or 250 hours
recommendations that result in
or less of annual increased capacity
. This form is sent to the Process
Improvement Director for his approval.
Date: 9/25/12
Name: Mike Fraser, Director of Public Works
Approved/Denied:
Process Improvement
Instructions: Upon approval this form is sent to the CMO Executi
who forwards a copy to members to the Executive Support Team. Th
DirectorÔs Approval
how to convert hours into budgetary savings.
Date: 9/28/2012
Approved/Denied:
City ManagerÔs Approval
that exceed $5,000 in
Instructions: Final sign off for all recommendations
annual savings, or 250 hours of annual increased functional capa
is by
the City Manager, who also signs off on any plans to convert hours to budgetary
savings. The CMO Executive Assistant converts the approved form into a pdf file
that is saved on the P drive and in Laserfiche.
Date: N/A
Approved/Denied: N/A